Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 10 Sep 2019.
I'm torn. Whilst noble, because climate change is bad m'kay, the demands read like they were written by a child.
And not a "save the planet for the future generations" child, a "I don't understand anything about the world but I've read some stuff on the internet and now I'm writing an online petition" child.
The only demand they have that is half-way possible to actually get going is the third. The first one is a joke, the second one is just not compatible with running a business. The intentions behind it are, as @Mister_Tad already said, noble.
Man, didn't people used to go on strike for less hostile working conditions instead of "our boss sells services to petroleum companies"?
I'd think Amazon employees would be far more concerned about the former, given the company's reputation.
Isn't that what all bosses say just before a strike takes place?
Having your employees on strike is also incompatible with running a business! I would say they'd have a really good chance of achieving all three of their ambitions if they were determined enough in their striking (and wealthy enought o lose the salary). Unfortunately for the organisers, I can't imagine that to be the case.
Strikes have been part of a constructive dialogue between workers/unions and companies for decades. They are a legitimate tool for workers/employees to put pressure on their employers. But, and that's what I'm criticizing here, the demands have to be at least halfway realistic. “zero emissions [in ten years]“? Did they write their list of demands with crayons? The piloting of emobiles is a good start and Amazon has started that process already. They designed their own electric delivery trucks after Mercedes and MAN said they couldn't deliver what Amazon outlined in their spec papers. This list sounds like so many current environmental demands, which often are just not realistic and fit the description by @Mister_Tad above.
And not serving a group of customers because you don't like their views on certain topics is wrong on so many levels. Also, it would most likely drive other customers away because they get scared of facing the termination of their service contracts because their service provider bows to pressure from some other source. If Donny T demanded Amazon to drop all connections to democrat-supporting businesses tons of people would be in arms. Here, because it's for the environment, it's fine? Come on.
Even if we take the (flawed) "Screw Amazon's revenues, they're loaded" view, don't forget the thousand or so people that are in sales, support, engineering and admin functions directly aligned to the oil and gas industry that get the sack. At least they'll all have jobs waiting for them at Azure or GCE when they mop up all of the exiting AWS contracts.
And that's the other point - then what, Schlumberger, ExxonMobil et al just close shop? Or bring everything back indoors? No, they spend a fortune migrating all of their workloads to Azure/GCE/AN-Other, and then have a big hole in their books to fill and will try to do so the only way they know how, with more oil and gas.
It really does seem like it comes straight from the "My first petition" section of 38 Degrees. Which is a shame, because it's in the right spirit, but being righteous alone does not get things done.
Separate names with a comma.